[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4242?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13419855#comment-13419855
 ] 

Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-4242:
--------------------------------------

This patch doesn't seem to make sense.
liveDocsRatio will be the same for every term - if you want to take into 
account deleted docs, then just do it when you set maxTermDocFreq.

Also, this code comes from Solr, where maxTermDocFreq is set as a percentage of 
maxDoc - so things are already scaled by the number of deleted docs.

I don't think there's anything to fix here.
                
> UnInverted cache uses term freq to filter out terms (but deleted docs are 
> included in the freq count)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-4242
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4242
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: core/index
>    Affects Versions: 4.0
>            Reporter: roman
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENE-4242.patch, LUCENE-4242.patch, LUCENE-4242.patch
>
>
> TermEnum.docFreq() count is used to compute uninverted index
> (DocTermOrds.uninvert()). The code goes like:
>       final int df = te.docFreq();
>       if (df <= maxTermDocFreq) {
> So, if there are deleted documents in the index and maxTermDocFreq is
> low, then the term will be excluded (even if the freq of the livedocs
> is OK). Most likely, the cache will be incomplete.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to